The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Document engineering[edit]

Document engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Having failed three different speedy attempts, it's time someone else looked at this. First attempt: "spammish, neologism, buzzwordy, not notable, no citations" is not a speedy (no assertion of blatantness), second attempt: that it infringes the copyright at http://docengineering.com/, which it doesn't; third attempt: it is blatant advertising, which it isn't, since it's actually a discipline of computer science [1]. Splash - tk 21:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources, except for the textbook this must have been copied out of without credit Mandsford 01:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's no indication that this newly invented term became widely used. Pavel Vozenilek 20:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.